ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Risk prediction models for cardiac rupture after acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the prognostic value of admission IL-8 and sST2 as biomarkers of early myocardial injury in severe community-acquired pneumonia.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factors, subtype profiles, and outcomes of cardiac rupture after acute myocardial infarction: a case-control study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Early recognition and risk stratification of cardiac rupture after acute myocardial infarction: from clinical red flags to emerging biomarkers.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiac rupture (CR) is a catastrophic complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), accounting for 10%-20% of AMI-related deaths despite its low incidence. Several risk prediction models have been developed, but their methodological quality and clinical applicability remain uncertain. This study systematically reviewed and quantitatively synthesized existing prediction models for CR post-AMI. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from inception to August 2025. Studies developing or validating risk prediction models for CR after AMI were eligible. Data extraction followed the CHARMS checklist, and methodological quality was assessed with PROBAST. A meta-analysis was performed to pool model discrimination (C-statistic) and evaluate predictors of CR. Subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity by publication period, study design, population, sample size, and validation approach. Results: Ten studies (2017-2024) involving 74-11,603 patients were included. Among them, nine studies reported C-statistics (AUC) along with their confidence intervals (CIs), which were suitable for quantitative synthesis (Meta-analysis). The pooled C-statistic of CR prediction models was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.89), though with high heterogeneity ( Conclusion: Existing models demonstrate promising discriminatory ability for predicting CR after AMI but are undermined by substantial methodological limitations. Age, sex, Killip grade, LVEF, and PCI status represent robust predictors that should inform future consensus-based models. Large-scale, prospective, and externally validated studies are urgently needed to develop reliable tools for clinical risk stratification and targeted prevention of this lethal complication. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251105703, PROSPERO CRD420251105703.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.